The effect of forcing and landscape distribution on performance and consistency of model structures

被引:42
作者
Euser, Tanja [1 ]
Hrachowitz, Markus [1 ]
Winsemius, Hessel C. [2 ]
Savenije, Hubert H. G. [1 ]
机构
[1] Delft Univ Technol, Fac Civil Engn & Appl Geosci, Water Resources Sect, NL-2600 GA Delft, Netherlands
[2] Deltares, NL-2600 GA Delft, Netherlands
关键词
conceptual model; distributed model structure; distributed model states; hydrological signatures; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELS; GROUNDWATER DYNAMICS; HYDROLOGIC MODEL; CATCHMENT; WATER; INFORMATION; CALIBRATION; TOPOGRAPHY; MESOSCALE; REALISM;
D O I
10.1002/hyp.10445
中图分类号
TV21 [水资源调查与水利规划];
学科分类号
081501 ;
摘要
It is often challenging to determine the appropriate level of spatial model forcing and model distribution in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling. This paper compares the value of incorporating both spatially distributed forcing data and spatially distributed model conceptualisations based on landscape heterogeneity, applied to the Ourthe catchment in Belgium. Distributed forcing data were used to create a spatial distribution of model states. Eight different configurations were tested: a lumped and distributed model structure, each with four levels of model state distribution. The results show that in the study catchment the distributed model structure can in general better reproduce the dynamics of the hydrograph, and furthermore, that the differences in performance and consistency between calibration and validation are smallest for the distributed model structure with distributed model states. For the Ourthe catchment, it can be concluded that the positive effect of incorporating a distributed model structure is larger than that of incorporating distributed model states. Distribution of model structure increases both model performance and consistency. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:3727 / 3743
页数:17
相关论文
共 68 条
[1]  
Ajami NK, 2004, J HYDROL, V298, P112, DOI [10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.033, 10.1016/j.hydrol.2004.03.033]
[2]   Impact of spatial aggregation of inputs and parameters on the efficiency of rainfall-runoff models:: A theoretical study using chimera watersheds -: art. no. W05209 [J].
Andréassian, V ;
Oddos, A ;
Michel, C ;
Anctil, F ;
Perrin, C ;
Loumagne, C .
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2004, 40 (05) :W052091-W052099
[3]   All that glitters is not gold: the case of calibrating hydrological models [J].
Andreassian, Vazken ;
Le Moine, Nicolas ;
Perrin, Charles ;
Ramos, Maria-Helena ;
Oudin, Ludovic ;
Mathevet, Thibault ;
Lerat, Julien ;
Berthet, Lionel .
HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2012, 26 (14) :2206-2210
[4]   A manifesto for the equifinality thesis [J].
Beven, K .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2006, 320 (1-2) :18-36
[5]   A dynamic TOPMODEL [J].
Beven, K ;
Freer, J .
HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2001, 15 (10) :1993-2011
[6]   CHANGING IDEAS IN HYDROLOGY - THE CASE OF PHYSICALLY-BASED MODELS [J].
BEVEN, K .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 1989, 105 (1-2) :157-172
[7]  
Beven K.J., 1979, Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, V24, P43, DOI DOI 10.1080/02626667909491834
[8]   On red herrings and real herrings: disinformation and information in hydrological inference [J].
Beven, Keith ;
Westerberg, Ida .
HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2011, 25 (10) :1676-1680
[9]   Uniqueness of place and process representations in hydrological modelling [J].
Beven, KJ .
HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2000, 4 (02) :203-213
[10]   ON THE REPRESENTATIVE ELEMENTARY AREA (REA) CONCEPT AND ITS UTILITY FOR DISTRIBUTED RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING [J].
BLOSCHL, G ;
GRAYSON, RB ;
SIVAPALAN, M .
HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 1995, 9 (3-4) :313-330